1992 PLP 1049 (CLC)

MANZOOR HUSSAIN SIAL, J.‑‑‑This Intro‑Court appeal arises out of order dated 17‑6‑1991 passed by learned Single Judge in Chambers whereby W.P. No.4938 of 1991 was dismissed in limine with an observation that the grievance. raised in the petition could be agitated before the departmental hierarchy who were expected if approached to act in accordance with law.

2. The appellants' counsel raised four‑fold pleas as under:‑ (i) the phone installed at his residence bearing No.416931 was not converted into new number from the new Exchange although the telephone numbers of several other subscribers had been converted at the choice of the concerned linemen; (ii) the New Telephone duly sanctioned and the prescribed charges paid pursuant to Demand Note the telephone connection was not provided at the residence of the petitioner. (iii) the Divisional Engineer did not comply with the orders of the General Manager directing him to change the D.P. nearer to his residence; (iv) not to charge from the subscriber the Line Rent at the rate of Rs.50 during the period the phone remains out of order or the intervening period from the issue of Demand Notice and the provision of the telephone connection as also to issue receipt for lodging of complaint when the telephone gets out of order.

3. Learned counsel for ‑ respondents on instructions from respondent No.3 who is present in person, on the contrary submitted that the appellant's old telephone number stands already converted as desired by him since 11‑6‑1991 and the provision of telephone connection from nearest D.P. as directed by the General Manager vide order dated 27‑6‑1991 is in process and shall be provided to him expeditiously if technically feasible. As regards the other pleas learned counsel submitted that the Line Rent at the rate of Rs.50 is charged from the date the telephone connection is actually provided and not from the date the telephone connection is sanctioned. It was lastly submitted that it is true that no receipt is issued to the complainant about the complaint lodged by him but it is not imperative for the Department to issue receipt as such. Complaints are duly registered and attended to by the staff.

4. We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties. As regards the first two grievances highlighted above, this petition has fructified as the old number stands converted into new number and the respondent has undertaken to comply with the orders of the General Manager dated 27‑6‑1991. We direct that the change of the D.P. shall be carried out if technically feasible within a fortnight from the date of this order.

5. As far the third grievance of the appellant is concerned, it is reasonable to charge Line Rent from the subscriber with effect from the date the actual connection is provided to him and not from the date of sanction as pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents. No further comment therefore can be made in regard thereto. The last grievance of the appellant about the non‑issuance of receipt in respect of complaints lodged by him we observe that this grievance is of public importance. The respondents are under moral and legal obligation to maintain a register for registration of the complaints at public offices and issuance of receipts therefore. This will not only improve the efficiency of the concerned members of the staff but will go a long way to redress the grievance of the public effectively. Subject to the observations made above, this appeal stands disposed of. H.B.T./J‑8/L ? Order accordingly.